Suchergebnisse

There are two functions of the state liability principle. The first is to secure individual rights (including economic rights) from a wrongful act conducted by a government, and the second is to compensate for damage caused by the infringement of individual right. Economic right is inherently allowing an individual to pursue economic interest both domestically or globally. In order to accommodate this right, a government is obliged to provide trade rules and mechanisms for every individual to conduct their global economic activities by participating in the WTO. The objective of the WTO significantly corresponds to the individual's right in order to obtain trade benefits. Hence, when a government infringes trade rules and mechanisms underlined in WTO Law, it will directly restrict individuals from gaining trade benefits under the WTO or, moreover, it will restrain individuals from enjoying their inviolable economic rights. When the right is violated, and the damage occurs, it thus leads to the obligation for the government to compensate the damage according to the state liability principle. This article discusses the nexus between the state liability principle and WTO Law, in order to encourage national courts to exercise the function of state liability by referring to the infringement of economic rights caused by the violation of WTO Law.

The main objective of WTO Law is to accommodate individual's right in order to obtain better benefit of international trade. However, when a government violates WTO Law, it is therefore causing deprivation of individual right itself. Direct effect seems to be a feasible doctrine to provide a judicial protection for individual, in order to rebalance the right that is violated. Nevertheless, this doctrine is intractable to imply. This article discuss the polemic of giving direct effect of WTO Law and DSB Decision to domestic law to provide judicial protection for individual who becomes victim of WTO violation conducted by government

"This is an edition of two manuscripts with notes taken during Samuel Pufendorf's teaching at the University of Lund in the early 1670s. The shorter manuscript consists of annotations from lectures on De jure naturae et gentium, the lengthier renders notes taken during lectures on De officio hominis et civis. The texts show Pufendorf's doctrine at the pedagogic level, as it was presented to students immediately after his books were published. The effect of that is that natural law is imbedded in religion; Biblical references are numerous compared to in the printed books. Still, many comments reflect Pufendorf's conflict with local adversaries in Lund and with Lutheran theologians in Germany. The main message, however, is that natural law, i.e. Pufendorf, should replace Aristotle as foundation for the teaching of moral philosophy"--Title page verso